Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Systems. A review for Scholarpedia

J2'

9i

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in
Quantum Systems. A review for
Scholarpedia

F. Strocchi
INFN, Sezione di Pisa, Pisa Italy

Abstract

The mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking in quan-
tum systems is briefly reviewed, rectifying part of the standard
wisdom on logical and mathematical grounds. The crucial role
^ r*| of the localization properties of the time evolution for the con-

Q-f elusion of the Goldstone theorem is emphasized.

1. Infinitely extended quantum systems

In the development of theoretical physics, the standard way of de-
scribing a broken symmetry has been that of introducing an explicit
non-symmetric term in the equations of motion. A real revolution
occurred with the realization of a much more economical and power-
ful mechanism, called spontaneous symmetry breaking, by which
symmetry breaking may be realized even if the equations of motion are
symmetric (Heisenberg 1928, Nambu 1960, Goldstone 1961).

The mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking for classical sys-
tems has a counterpart for quantum systems. For such a transcription,
in analogy with the classical crucial role is played by the infinite

extension of the system and locality, so that each ground state defines
a physically disjoint realization of the system (i.e. a disjoint physical
world or phase). For this purpose, it is useful to recall that infinitely
extended quantum systems are conveniently described by algebras A of
local operators (Haag and Kastler 1964).

1

2

For the sake of concreteness, for infinitely extended non-relativistic
systems which allow a description in terms of canonical variables, one
can take the algebra A of localized canonical variables generated by
ip(f) = J d 3 xip(x)f(x.), where is the canonical field "localized" in
x,

[ V(x), V(y) ] = o, [V(x), V*(y) ] = *(x - y),

and / G (^(R 3 ), of compact support (i.e. G £>(R 3 )) or of fast decrease
(i.e. G S(R 3 )). ^(x) and ^*(x) have the meaning of destruction and
creation operators and in the Fock representation they respectively de-
stroy and create elementary excitations localized at x. For relativistic
quantum fields, one can take the local field algebra J 7 generated by the
local fields tp(f) = J d 4 xtp(x) f(x), f G 5(R 4 ). In both cases, space
and time translations are assumed to be well defined transformations
on the local algebras.

In the case of a finite number 2N of degrees of freedom, described by
the canonical variables qk,Pk, k — 1, ...N, (hereafter referred to as the
finite dimensional case) , under general regularity conditions the Stone-
von Neumann theorem (Stone 1930, von-Neumann 1931) states that the
Schroedinger representation is the unique irreducible representation of
the algebra A c of canonical variables, up to unitary equivalence (see
below) .

On the other hand, the local algebras A which describe infinitely
extended systems have many inequivalent representations and the first
step is the selection of those which are physically relevant. We re-
call that a representation it (A) of A is a homomorphism of A (i.e. a
mapping which preserves all the algebraic relations) into an algebra
of operators in a Hilbert space V, w , (with the technical condition of a
common invariant dense domain).

Strong physical considerations motivate the following general con-
ditions (in the case of zero temperature considered below). Such con-
ditions apply to both non-relativistic and relativistic systems; for the
latter ones, further conditions are needed corresponding to relativis-
tic invariance and microscopic causality or (relativistic) locality (see
below) .

In the following, when we are dealing with a given representation
n, in order to simplify the notation we shall often denote by A the
representative n(A) of the element A.

3

I. (Existence of energy and momentum) In the representation ir
of A in terms of operators in a Hilbert space Tin, the space and time
translations, a x , a t , are described by strongly continuous groups of
unitary operators C/(x), U(t), x G R s , t G R:

a x (A) = f/(x)Af/(x)-\ a t (A) = l/(t)Al7(t)~\ VA G A

The strong continuity is equivalent to the existence of the genera-
tors, namely of the momentum P and of the energy H .

II. (Stability or spectral condition) The energy spectrum a(H) is
bounded from below. The relativistic invariant form of such a condition
is a{H) > 0, H 2 - P 2 > 0.

Clearly, the failure of the spectral condition implies that the system
may undergo a decay into states of lower and lower energy, i.e. a
collapse.

III. (Ground state) Inf a(H) is a proper (non-degenerate) eigenvalue
of H, the corresponding eigenvector \l/ is called the ground state and
it is a cyclic vector for n(A), i.e. n(A) is the common dense domain.
\l/o is also assumed to be invariant under space translations (or at least
under a subgroup of them, but for simplicity, in the following, we shall
restrict our discussion to the case of invariance under the full translation
group)

IV. (Local structure) Asymptotic abelianess: for any two elements

A,B e n (A)

weak— lim [a x (A),B] — 0,

|x|— s>oo

(the weak limit means the limit of the matrix elements for any pair of
vectors belonging to T-L n )

If A and B describe quantities which can be measured, briefly if
they are observable elements, asymptotic abelianess means that the
measurement of B becomes compatible with the measurement of A (in
the quantum mechanical sense), when the latter is translated at infinite
(space) distance.

Equivalently, the local structure may be codified by the cluster prop-
erty:

lim [{Aa x (B)) - (A) (B)} = 0, VA, B G n(A),

|x|— >oo

where the bracket ( ) denotes the ground state expectation, i.e. (A) =
(*o,^*o)-

4

The physical meaning of the cluster property is that a decorrelation
occurs for infinitely separated elements of the local algebra, as it must
be for an acceptable physical interpretation. A very important result is
that the validity of the cluster property is equivalent to the uniqueness
of the translationally invariant state in H^. For brevity, a representa-
tion with a unique translationally invariant ground state shall be called
a pure phase.

In conclusion, an infinitely extended quantum system is conveniently
described by the local algebra A and by the set of its physically relevant
representations; we denote by E the set of the corresponding states.

Inequivalent representations of A describe disjoint realizations of
the system and the possibility arises of the mechanism of symmetry
breaking, as in the classical case.

2. Symmetries of a quantum system and their spontaneous breaking

In the case of finite dimensional quantum systems, described by the
Schroedinger representation, as clarified by Wigner (Wigner 1959), a
symmetry g is an invertible mapping of the states, i.e. of the rays, of
the Schroedinger Hilbert space %s an d, as a consequence of Wigner
theorem (Wigner 1959), it can be implemented by a unitary operator
U(g) in Hs- Hence, g defines an algebraic mapping a g of the algebra
of canonical variables A c (since A c is faithfully represented in Us)'-

a g {A) = U{g)AU{g)-\ \/A e A c ,

which preserves all the algebraic relations (technically a g defines an
automorphism of A c ), i.e. an algebraic symmetry.

The relevant point is that, in the case of infinitely extended sys-
tems there may be automorphisms a g of the local algebra A which are
not described by unitary operators in one representation 7r of A. This
means that g exists as a symmetry at the algebraic level, but it is not
a symmetry of the realization of the system provided by the represen-
tation 7r. In this case, the symmetry g is broken in H^. As in the
classical case, this very deep mechanism cannot be reduced to the state-
ment that "spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs in a situation where,
given a symmetry of the equation of motion, solutions exists which are
not invariant under the action of this symmetry without any explicit
asymmetric input" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008). The

5

symmetry is unbroken in the realization of the system described by
a representation ir if it is implemented by unitary operators in H n .

In the following, we consider the case of internal symmetries, i.e.
symmetries which commute with space and time translations. For them
one has the following criterion of symmetry breaking, which is at the
basis of the standard discussion.

Theorem 0.1 Given an internal symmetry (3, i.e. an automorphism
of A, which commutes with space and time translations, a necessary and
sufficient condition for (3 being broken in a representation ir, satisfying
conditions I-IV, is that there exists A G k(A) such that {(3(A)) ^ (A).
In this case (A) is called a symmetry breaking order parameter.

It is worthwhile to remark that the validity of the cluster property,
i.e. the uniqueness of the translationally invariant ground state in % n ,
is crucial for the effectiveness of the criterium. In fact, the cluster
property is not satisfied in a representation defined by a mixed state
and the invariance of the expectations of a mixed ground state does
not exclude that the symmetry is broken in each pure phase in which
the representation decomposes.

3. Goldstone theorem without assuming relativistic invariance

A very important consequence of the breaking of a continuous one-
parameter Lie group of symmetries (3 X , A G R, in a representation % n ,
is the Goldstone theorem (Goldstone 1961, see also Nambu 1960).
The theorem provides exact information on the energy momentum spec-
trum of the intermediate states which saturate the two point function
(j/j,{x) A), where A defines the symmetry breaking order parameter and
jfi is the conserved current whose existence follows from the symmetry
of the dynamics (typically from the invariance of the Lagrangian under
(3 X ), hereafter referred to as the conserved Noether current.

The formulation and proof in the non-relativistic case has been the
subject of debate, in our opinion because it has not been clearly realized
that the crucial hypothesis is a sufficient locality of the dynamics. Since
there are interesting physical systems which exhibit the breaking of
a continuous symmetry with an apparent evasion of the conclusions
of the Goldstone theorem (like superconductivity, Coulomb systems
and plasmons, Higgs mechanism etc.), it is worthwhile to examine the
hypotheses with special care, even at the risk of looking pedantic.

6

The original argument by Goldstone (Goldstone 1961) relied on a
semi-classical approximation based on a mean field ansatz. The sub-
stantial improvement leading to a proof of the theorem by Goldstone,
Salam and Weinberg (GSW) (Goldstone, Salam, Weinberg 1961), was
the realization and the exploitation of the link between the generation
of the one-parameter symmetry group (3 X by the algebraic derivation
on A:

(d/d\)(^\A))\ x=0 = (5 A)

and the integral of the charge density jo of the conserved Noether cur-
rent jp, d^jp = 0.

Formally, such a link reads

(5A) = lim ([Q R (t), A]} = lim ([Q R (0), A}}, (0.1)

Q R (t) EE / rf 3 XJ (x,t).
J\x\<R

The above eq. (0.1), which is at the basis of the GSW proof for rela-
tivistic systems (to be discussed below), is also the crucial ingredient
of the Goldstone theorem for non-relativistic systems. In the latter
case, a proper formulation and discussion of eq. (0.1), which shall be
later referred to as the property of local generation of f3 x by the
conserved Noether current j^, requires a special care, mainly be-
cause the dynamics is not strictly local as in the relativistic case (see
below). The point is that the check of the generation of the symme-
try by the current density at equal times (which requires only the use
of the canonical commutation relations) is not enough for establishing
eq. (0.1). The statement (which may be found in the literature) that
the independence of time of the commutator [Q(t), A] is guaranteed by
the invariance of the Hamiltonian, since Q = i[H,Q] = 0, is not cor-
rect. For the local generation at unequal times, the local property of
the dynamics plays a crucial role. In fact, if the dynamics is strictly
local, i.e. the time evolution of an operator localized in a compact
set is still localized in a (possibly larger) compact set, the generation
at equal times implies eq. (0.1). However, such an implication fails if
the dynamics induces a long range derealization (see below) (Morchio
and Strocchi 1985, Strocchi 2008) and the Goldstone theorem does not
apply.

7

The first step in the discussion of eq. (0.1) is the condition of integra-
bility of the charge density commutators. Technically, one must have
that J(x, t) = i([,7o(x, t), A]) is absolutely integrable in x as a tem-
pered distribution in t, i.e. after smearing with any test function h(t)
of fast decrease (charge integrability condition). This condition is
usually overlooked in the standard treatments of the non-relativistic
Goldstone theorem, but it is needed for the continuity of the energy
momentum spectrum in the neighborhood of k = 0, which is necessary
for drawing the conclusions of the theorem (Swieca 1967, Morchio and
Strocchi 1985, 1987, Strocchi 2008).

The charge integrability condition is satisfied if the dynamics is
sufficiently local, so that the (unequal time) commutators decay suffi-
ciently fast in the limit of infinite space separations; the condition is
obviously satisfied in the case of a strictly local dynamics, as it occurs
in relativistic theories described by fields satisfying micro-causality.

The localization of the dynamics plays a crucial role also for assuring
the time independence of lim^_ >00 ([ Quit), A]), a necessary condition
for its equality to the expectation of the time independent derivation
SA. (anti) commutation relations are local, the issue is the effect of
usually induced by the time evolution.

Since, the continuity equation gives

(d/dt)([j (x,t), A]) =div([j(x,t),A]>,

the time independence of lim j fj^ 00 ([ Qn(t), A]) is guaranteed if the time
evolution is sufficiently local, so that the Swieca condition (Swieca
1967) is satisfied (s denotes the space dimension)

lim |a| s - 1 ([j(x + a,0), a t (A)]} = 0.

|a|— >oo

Such a condition and more generally the needed time independence of
lim^_ 5>00 ([ Qn(t), A]), which may actually require a weaker form of the
Swieca condition (Strocchi 2005), is violated in the case of interactions
described by a two body potential decaying as 1/r and this is the expla-
nation of the evasion of the Goldstone theorem by Coulomb systems (as
well as in the closely related Higgs mechanism in the Coulomb gauge).

8

In fact, roughly the logic of the theorem is the following: the time
independence of

J dxJ(x,t) = lim J due™* J(k,u), J(x,t) = i{[j (x,t), A]),

implies that limk_>o j(k, u;) = XS(uj), (A a suitable constant).

If there is symmetry breaking and f3 x is locally generated by j M ,
one has J dxJ(x,t) = (5 A) ^ 0, which implies A ^ 0. Thus, there
cannot be a positive constant //, such that the energy spectrum of the
intermediate states, which saturate the two point function J(x, t), is
supported in {u;(k) > /i > 0}, in the neighborhood of k = 0; hence,
there cannot be an energy gap /i.

As a consequence of the above discussion one has the following
(Lange 1966; Morchio and Strocchi 1987)

Theorem 0.2 fGoldstone theorem for non-relativistic systems j

//

i) P x , A G R is a one-parameter internal symmetry group,

ii) f3 x is locally generated by the conserved current j M (which transforms
covariantly under space and time translations), eq. (0.1),

Hi) f3 x is broken in the representation n with translationally invariant
ground state vector i.e. there is A G A such that (5 A) ^ ;
then there are quasi particle excitations with infinite lifetime in the
limit k — > 0, i.e. particle-like excitations with energy width T(k) — >
as k — > 0, and with energy u(k) — > as k — > ('Goldstone quasi
particles^; the corresponding states have non-trivial projections in the
subspaces {n(a t (A))^ , t G R} ; {ir(Q R )^ , R G R}.

4. Goldstone theorem for relativistic quantum systems

For relativistic quantum systems described by a local field algebra
J 7 , the relevant representations are selected by the following physical
conditions which strengthen the conditions I-IV discussed above, by
incorporating relativistic invariance and relativistic locality:
I. (Poincare covariance) The automorphisms a(a, A), (a G R 4 , A de-
noting the elements of the restricted Lorentz group), which describe the
transformations of the Poincare group are implemented by a strongly
continuous group of unitary operators U(a,A(M)), M G SL(2, C),

9

II. (Relativistic spectral condition) H > 0, H 2 — P 2 > 0,

III. (Vacuum state) There is a unique space-time translationally in-
variant state \l/o (vacuum state) cyclic for the field algebra J 7

IV. (Locality) The algebra J 7 satisfies relativistic locality, i.e. fields
commute or anticommute at relatively spacelike points.

In the case of relativistic local fields, the inevitable ultraviolet sin-
gularities require a more careful regularization of the integral of the
charge density j , e.g.

Qr = 3o(fR, h) = J d 4 x f R (x) h(x ) j (x, x ),

where / fl (x) = /(|x|/i2), / G P(R), f(y) = 1, if \y\ < 1, f(y) = 0, if
\y\> 1 + e, he P(R), supp/i C [-5, 5], /i(0) = / dx h(x ) = 1.

In the case of relativistic local fields the problems discussed above
for non-relativistic systems, like the charge integrability condition, the
local generation of /3 X and the time independence of the charge den-
sity commutators do no longer arise thanks to locality. Then, one has
(Goldstone, Salam and Weinberg 1962; Kastler,Robisson and Swieca
1966)

Theorem 0.3 (Goldstone theorem for relativistic local fields^

Let f3 x , X G R, be a one parameter group of internal symmetries locally
generated by the covariant conserved current j^, i.e. \/F G J 7

{6F)= lim i([Qr, F ]};

then, the symmetry breaking condition (SF) ^ implies that the Fourier
transform J^(k) of the two point function (j^(x)F) contains a 5(k 2 )
contribution, i.e. there are Goldstone massless modes.

The proof of the theorem is particularly simple if F is a scalar
elementary field (p(x), i.e. a field transforming as a pointlike operator
under the Poincare group:

U(a, A) <p(x) U(a, A) -1 = ip(Ax + a).

This was indeed the case considered in the original proof by Goldstone,
Salam and Weinberg. In fact, the Poincare covariance of the two point
function J^(x,y) = (j^x) (p(y)) implies that it has the following form

Jp{x,y) = J„(x-y) =d fl J(x-y),

10

with J(x) a Lorentz invariant function. Then, the current conservation
gives

= d%(ar) = DJ(x).

This means that J^(k) = Xk^5(k 2 ), with A ^ as a consequence of the
symmetry breaking condition (5ip) ^ 0; hence, the intermediate states
which saturate the two point function J^{x) have energy- momentum
spectrum supported in k 2 = 0, i.e. they describe massless modes.

The role of Lorentz covariance in the original proof (Goldstone,
Salam and Weinberg 1962) has led to the belief that its failure provides
the relevant mechanism for evading the conclusions of the theorem.
This was indeed emphasized by Higgs (Higgs 1964) as the property of
the Coulomb gauge which allowed the evasion of the Goldstone theo-
rem for the Higgs mechanism. As stressed in the non-relativistic case,
the crucial property is rather the localization property of the dynamics.
As a matter of fact, the more general proof of the theorem, given by
Kastler, Robinson and Swieca (Kastler, Robinson, Swieca 1967), covers
the case of a symmetry breaking order parameter F without a pointlike
structure, like a compound field or a polynomial of elementary fields,
so that the two point function (j^(x) F) does not have simple transfor-
mation properties under Lorentz boosts.

In view of the crucial role of locality, a few comments may be rele-
vant about its validity in the case of relativistic systems. Clearly, the
algebra of observable fields and in particular the algebra A Q b s of their
bounded functions, usually called the algebra of observables, must sat-
isfy locality, since measurements of operators localized in spacelike sep-
arated regions must be independent in the quantum mechanical sense.

However, this does not imply that the states of the system, opera-
tionally defined by their expectations of A Q b s , are local states, i.e. can
be obtained by applying local fields to a vacuum state. Thus, one may
have to use a non-local field algebra to reach such non-local states. In
fact, this is the case of the charged states in quantum electrodynamics,
whose description requires the non-local charged fields of the Coulomb
gauge. Then, if the symmetry breaking is realized by the vacuum ex-
pectation of a non-local field, the same problems of the non-relativistic
systems arise and the same mechanism of evasion of the Goldstone
theorem may take place.

11

5. Appendix

In the seminal paper of 1964, Haag and Kastler emphasized the role
of locality and, on the basis of mathematical and physical considera-
tions, argued that the convenient mathematical setting for the descrip-
tion of infinitely extended systems is that of C* -algebras; such algebras
are (isomorphic to) norm closed algebras of operators in a Hilbert space,
stable under the adjoing operation (Gelfand and Naimark 1943).

The abstract definition of a C*-algebra A is that it is a linear asso-
ciative algebra over the field C of complex numbers, with an involution
* and equipped with a norm | | satisfying

i) \\AB\\ < \\A\\ \\B\\

ii) \\A* A\\ = \\A\\*

iii) A is complete with respect to the norm.

In the following, we shall always consider unital C*-algebras A, i.e.
with an identity 1, (1A = A = Al, \/A G A).

A representation n of a C*-algebra A in a Hilbert space is a ho-
momorphism of A into the C*-algebra £>(%„-) of the bounded operators
in T-L n) namely a mapping which preserves all the algebraic relations,
including the * (i.e. ir is linear, multiplicative n(AB) = tt(A) ir(B) and
tt(A)* = ir(A*)). The property of preserving the * is spelled out by
speaking of *-homomorphism, but for simplicity we shall omit the *.
A homomorphism of A into the C*-algebra B which is one-to-one and
onto (bijective) is an isomorphism] an isomorphism of A onto itself is
called an automorphism. A vector \& G 'H- K is cyclic if n(A) ^ is dense
in 'Hk- A representation n is faithful if kern = {0}, i.e. n(A) =
implies A = 0.

A state u> on A is a positive linear functional on A, i.e. MA, B G A

u(XA + fiB) = Xu(A) + fj,u{B), A,/iGC, u{A*A)>0.

A state won^l defines a representation n^A) of A in a Hilbert space
"H w , i.e. a homomorphism of the C*-algebra A into the C* algebra of
bounded operators in "H w . Moreover, contains a cyclic vector ^
such that cj(A) = (^ w , n u (A) ^E^). The representation is called the
Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) representation defined by u and it is
unique up to isomorphisms (Gelfand and Naimark 1943, Segal 1947).

A state bj on A is called pure if it cannot be written as a convex linear
combination of other states, and mixed otherwise. A mixed state ui on

12

A cannot be described by a state vector in an irreducible representation
of A; in fact, it is described by a density matrix:

u(A) = Ti( PuJ n(A)), MA e A,

i i

where Pi are one-dimensional orthogonal projections.

Clearly, any vector $ G ^, with % the carrier of a representation
7r of the C*-algebra A, defines a state on A, uiy(A) = (^, 7r(A) \I>)
and the corresponding GNS representation is unitarily equivalent to ir.

For quantum systems with a finite number 2iV of degrees of freedom,
described by the canonical variables qk,Pk, k = 1,...N, the standard
C*-algebra is the canonical Weyl algebra Aw, generated by the unitary
operators U(a), V(/3), ct,/3 e R^, formally given by the exponentials
U(a) = e l ^ kak<ik , V(f3) = e*^ fe/3fePfe , with the commutation relations in-
duced by the canonical commutation relations of the canonical variables
qk,Pk- in particular, U(a), V(j3) define TV-parameter abelian unitary
groups. A representation n of the Weyl algebra is regular if n(U(a)),
7i(V(f3)) are weakly continuous in a, (3, i.e. their matrix elements are
continuous functions of a, (3; regularity is a necessary and sufficient
condition for the existence of the generators, i.e. of the canonical vari-
ables qk,Pk (as unbounded operators in / H n ). The Stone-von Neumann
theorem (Stone 1930, von Neumann 1931) states that, up to unitary
equivalence, there is only one regular irreducible representation of the
canonical Weyl algebra. This means that there is only one (regular)
realization of a system described by a canonical Weyl algebra. This im-
plies that, for finite dimensional quantum systems, symmetries defined
on the canonical variables q,p can never be broken (Strocchi 2008); the
standard argument that symmetry breaking is prevented by tunneling
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2008) looks less general and in
fact does not apply to finite dimensional spin systems, for which an
analog of the Stone-von Neumann uniqueness theorem may be proved.

As advocated by Haag and Kastler, infinitely extended systems
should be described by local C*-algebras, i.e. by norm closed *-algebras
generated by operators which are localized.

In the non-relativistic case, one may consider the canonical field
operators ipix), V ; *( x ) ) localized at x, smear them with test functions

13

/, g G (^(R 3 ), of compact support (i.e. G £>(R 3 )) or of fast decrease
(i.e. G 5(R 3 )), and take the C*-algebra A generated by the exponen-
tials

U(f) = e iWf)+rU) \ V(g) = e^ 9) ~ r{9) .

This algebra represents the infinite dimensional analog of the Weyl
algebra; the Stone-von Neumann theorem does not apply and in fact
there are many inequivalent representations.

In the case of relativistic systems, Haag and Kastler proposed to
define a quantum field theory by the association of a C*-algebra A(0)
to each bounded region O, typically a double cone, in Minkowski space,
with the following setting: i) isotony: if D 2 , then A(Oi) C A(0<z);
ii) locality: if 0\ and 2 are completely spacelike with respect to each
other, then A(Oi) and .4.(02) commute; iii) the norm completion A of
the set theoretical union of all A(0), called the algebra of observ-
ables, contains all the observables; iv) relativistic covariance: the inho-
mogeneous Lorentz group is represented by automorphisms A — > oll{A)
such that a L (A(0)) = A(O l ), VA G A, with L the image of O under
the inhomogeneous Lorentz transformation L.

The algebra A(O) has the meaning of the observables which can
be measured in the space-time region O. The C* structure emphasizes
that fact that, from an operational point of view, observables should
be described by bounded operator (Segal 1947, Strocchi 2005). From a
mathematical point of view, there is a big advantage in using bounded
operators, since e.g. domain questions do not arise. For simplicity, we
shall not spell out the distinction between the union of the A(0), called
the local observable algebra, and its completion called the quasilocal
algebra of observables. Furthermore, it is taken for granted that A
admits a faithful algebraically irreducible representation.

The standard formulation of quantum field theory makes use of local
quantum fields, which are unbounded operators and therefore cannot
be elements of a C*-algebra. Furthermore, there are quantum fields
which do not describe observable quantities; e.g. a fermion field is not
an observable field, whereas so is the electromagnetic field F liU . Thus,
the algebra T generated by the local fields contains the subalgebra T bs
of observables fields; the C*-algebra of observables should be obtained
by considering bounded functions of the observable fields. For example,
e tF v(f\ with / G £>(R 4 ), is a bounded operator and may be considered

14

as an element of the C*-algebra of observables.

In the Haag-Kastler approach, called the algebraic approach to quan-
tum field theory, a symmetry is an automorphism of the algebra of ob-
servables and it is broken in a representation ir if it is not implementable
by a unitary operator there.

Acknowledgments. I am indebted to Riccardo Guida for useful com-
ments in the preparation of this note.

15

REFERENCES
RW. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 130, 439 (1963)

T. Eguchi and K. Nishijima, Broken Symmetry. Selected papers by Y.
Nambu, World Scientific 1995

I. Gelfand and M.A. Naimark, On the imbedding of normed rings into
the ring of operators in a Hilbert space, Mat. Shorn., N.S., 12, 197-217
(1943)

J. Goldstone, Field Theories with Superconductor Solutions, Nuovo
Cim. 19, 154-164 (1961)

J. Goldstone, A. Salam and S. Weinberg, Broken Symmetries, Phys.
Rev. 127, 965-970 (1962)

R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics, Springer 1996

R. Haag and D. Kastler, Algebraic approach to quantum field theory,
Jour. Math. Phys. 5, 848-861 (1964)

W. Heisenberg, Zut Theorie des Ferromagnetism, Z. Physik 49, 619-636
(1928)

P.W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries, Massless Particles and Gauge Fields,
Phys. Lett. 12, 132-133 (1964)

D. Kastler, D.W. Robinson and J. A. Swieca, Conserved currents and
associated symmetries; Goldstone's theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. 2,
108-120 (1962)

R.V. Lange, Nonrelativistic Theorem Analogous to the Goldstone The-
orem, Phys. Rev. 146, 301-303 (1966)

G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Infrared problem, Higgs phenomenon and
long range interactions, Lectures at the Erice School of Mathematical
Physics, Erice 1985, Fundamental Problems of Gauge Field Theories,
G. Velo and A.S. Wightman eds. Plenum 1986

G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Mathematical structures for long-range
dynamics and symmetry breaking, Jour. Math. Phys. 28, 622-735
(1987)

Y. Nambu, Axial vector current conservation in weak interactions,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 4. 380-382 (1960)

Y. Nambu, Quasiparticles and Gauge Invariance in the Theory of Su-
perconductivity, Phys. Rev. 117, 648-663 (1960)

I. Segal, Postulates of general quantum mechanics, Annals of Math.,
48, 930-948 (1947)

16

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Symmetry and Symmetry Break-
ing, 2008

M.H. Stone, Linear transformations in Hilbert space, III. Operational
methods and group theory, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 16, 172-175
(1930)

F. Strocchi, Symmetry Breaking, Springer, 2005, 2nd ed. 2008

F. Strocchi, An Introduction to the Mathematical Structure of Quantum

Mechanics, World Scientific 2005, 2nd enlarged edition 2010

J. A. Swieca, Range of forces and broken symmetries in many-body

systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 4, 1-7 (1967)

J. von Neumann, Die Eindeutigkeit der Schroedingerschen Operatoren,
Math Ann. 104, 570-578 (1931)

E.P. Wigner, Group Theory and Its Applications to the Quantum Me-
chanics of Atomic Spectra, Academic Press 1959